Ben Ericson

Thank you again. I went ahead and bought a few of the Firecrests. I'll let you know how it goes.

Thanks for the info. I might just go with the Tiffen White Water and grab a separate IR cut filter if needed. According to reviews online, even the White Water IRND has problems with a green shift. This is apparently pretty common with IR cut filters. Do you have any issues with color shift with your White Water NDs? I would rather just not deal with any shift in post, which is why I prefer to shoot with a stock that works best for lighting and no filters whenever possible.

I am looking to purchase a set of hard stop screw on filters for my set of Leica R lenses. I will be using these lenses on a Nikon Mount Eyemo 35mm camera. Would using an IR cut / ND have any effect on the 35mm film? Is this only something that can happen in digital? Should I just get the IR cut filters so am safe to use them on any digital sensor as well or would I bet better suited to buy straight ND filters? I was looking at these. Thanks for the help! https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089638-REG/formatt_hitech_fc52irnd_9_firecrest_52mm_nd_plus.html

I haven't used it. I would assume that any of those lenses will work for you. In my experience, the zooms are pretty similar optically. Using prime lenses like the Kern 26 1.1 is where you will see a huge difference in the quality of the glass. Even then, it's all 16mm.

It should be noted that the bigger Kern lenses' zoom functions are a lot smoother than the other options. You could try the compact Kern 17 - 85. The 18 - 86 is smaller than the 16 - 100 but it is still fairly large.

Would love to see a full resolution version on Vimeo or Youtube.

I would be interested to know how much of an improvement there would be with a dpx work flow vs ProRes 444. I recently had some stuff scanned to 2k at Kodak Atlanta. I received a drive full of DPX files, I then converted those DPX files to 2k ProRes 444 for editing. When I was finished with the edit, I handed off a flattened version of that ProRes file for the final color grade. For what it's worth, I found the Scan Station straight to ProRes to be a bit sharper and it seemed to handle under exposed stuff better.

I have a Bolex S16 SBM that I just had serviced. Includes the Kern 16-100 1.9. I have a couple rolls headed to the lab right now. Let me touch base with you in a few weeks and see if you're still looking for one.

This post is from 2017. I really doubt he still has the film.

I have been reading about this a lot over the last week. I had always just assumed that because the fisheyes were vintage, that they were soft wide open. I have learned to work around it. This is the best, most straight forward article I have found on the subject. http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2014/12/rx-vs-non-rx-lenses.html I've shot quite a bit with the Century 3.5mm and the Century 5.7mm. I recently bought another Century 5.7mm that covers Super 16mm. I This edit below has a lot with the 5.9mm and a few shots with the 3.5mm. I am fairly certain the last few shots in the video, starting at around 2:25, were shot at F4 - 5.6. https://vimeo.com/268666200 In my experience, the best fast wide lens is the Kern 10mm 1.6 RX. Here is a few examples of the Century 5.9mm. The first frame is F11 on 50d. I believe this second frame is F2.8 or F3.5. I didn't use the footage because it was so soft. The difference is obviously night and day. F11 I think this was 3.5... Could have been 2.8.

Why would an insurance company in ND feel safe to insure a production, over an agency in LA? Wouldn't they just be taking a huge risk for very little reward, that is unless the state was giving them some sort of write off or kick back. Hey, I thought here everybody needs to "get back to work," and life goes on. If the state required you to wear a mask, you're literally going to sit out for 3 years? I don't understand the logic. It is a minor inconvenience that will potentially save lives and at the very least prevent illness between the cast and crew. They might even let you have your director's chair back!

I did a bunch of reading about this a few months back. I was curious how people got light in the eyes without filling in the face. I think the trick is hard light sources, dimmed down and pulled back. Here's an article with Wally Pfister about the Dark Knight. I'm pretty sure they used a 1x1 LED for close ups to get the perfect catch light. https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2012/DarkKnightRises/page1.html Some cool BTS with Steve Yedlin on the topic of reflections in glasses. In my experience, a LED panel about 10 feet away can create a nice catch light and not light the subject. The wattage is all going to depend on what ISO and F stop you are lighting for. Here is an example. This was incredibly quick setup for some corporate work. C300 Mk2 with a 24-105. 2 person crew. Please take that with a grain of salt... The client wanted a natural / candid look for this video. We used a bounce that was camera left. I had an astra behind me, 8 feet or so, at about 10/20 percent brightness. I don't think there was enough throw from the Light Panel to be lighting him.

https://deadline.com/2020/04/film-florida-recommendations-safe-sets-covid-19-no-directors-chairs-no-trailers-clear-barriers-for-actors-mics-hairbrushes-1202923124/

Reminds me of "Dr. Phil's" "360,000 die in pools every year." This is an argument that does nothing to help prove your point. Spouting off death rates of other non contagious causes of death certainly does not make Covid19 any less deadly. I'm hoping that safety precautions can be put into place for everyone to return to work.

Great looking work Arthur.